-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A look at the NKJV.
- Thread starter Steven m.
- Start date
S
Steve K.
Guest
Now don't try to pull a fast one Ransom.If the KJV is the word of God then the MV's can't be because they don't agree.
Scott your problem appears to be an authority problem from all angles.
Scott your problem appears to be an authority problem from all angles.
S
Steve K.
Guest
Not ready for some more truth yet there Brian?
Nope. I accept the authority of God as communicated through His Word as found in the KJV.... but also in the NKJV, NASB, and possibly a few others. All 3 of these versions tell me as a man not to submit to the spiritual teaching of a woman.
But, as I have told you before, I do not accept your authority nor Riplingers nor Ruckmans nor Marrs nor Gipps... I do not and will not accept what you say as truth without legitimate proof. Distorted quotes, historical revisionism, and use of scripture out of context won't sway me.
When you or anyone else shows me incontrovertible scriptural or historical proof that only the KJV is the Word of God in English then I will gladly change. However, as long as the full weight of evidence is against your belief, I refuse to accept what you say just because you say it.
S
Steve K.
Guest
quote from Scott;1 Timothy 2
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (KJV)
Did your mom ever teach you anything?
Did you have any female school teachers?
Come on Scott you can try harder if you put your mind to it.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (KJV)
Did your mom ever teach you anything?
Did you have any female school teachers?
Come on Scott you can try harder if you put your mind to it.
Clearly the context of this scripture is spiritual teaching. Many of those who would have received it were bond servants which by biblical command had to submit to their master even if a woman.
I was not a man when women taught me in spiritual matters, I was a child. Perhaps I am assuming to much, maybe you are still a child?
S
Steve K.
Guest
But you don't have scripture remember? It's only the originals for you.Scott you must submit to authority or you will never grow spiritually.Perhaps that is why you struggle so.
Steve, Why do you persist in falsehood? I told you the versions I trust and use. They are translations of the Word of God. They teach the same thing. You have yet to prove one missing doctrine. They all derive their authority from the originals by the testimony of the evidence for the biblical texts.
Steve, I have told you Who I accept as authoritative. I have also told you that neither you nor the false prophets of KJVOnlyism have authority over me. Further, you even reject the truth of the KJV as you have twice in writing now acknowledged a woman as a spiritual teacher... and one of these women you even accept as someone directly inspired by God.
Many KJVO's know me. They disagree with me on this issue. However, they believe me to be spiritually mature, knowledgable of God's Word, and alive. Do you know any users of MV's that think of you as a mature Christian?
I know many who are "only" KJV. They believe it to be the best available translation while not denying that other honest translations are possible. I have no disagreement with these folks. But KJVOnlyism is a lie of Satan designed to divide Christians and eventually take God's Word away from the common man the same way he did it with the Latin Vulgate. As English continues to evolve, more and more error will be introduced by simple misunderstandings of word meanings.
There are already hundreds of words in the KJV that have either changed meanings or fallen out of usage altogether. Those that are not known aren't as dangerous as words like 'let', 'communicate' or 'conversation'. These words and others like them are used by common people with understood meanings entirely different from what the often mean in the KJV.
For instance:
Does this mean that they dialogued with him about giving and receiving?
No... it means they shared with him. But the common English speaker today would not know this.
S
Steve K.
Guest
There are NO other honest translations. The KJV is the word of God.
This statement only proves your blindness to all that has been shown to you. Elsewhere, you claim that Psalms 12:6-7 guarantees that God would preserve His words (a false, ignorant claim but one you make none the less). Here you say that there are no other honest translations. Would you make God a liar? Where was His words prior to 1611? Were they denied to English speakers? And if the words of God existed in English prior to 1611, what did these Anglicans think they were doing tampering with God's words.
S
Steve K.
Guest
Scott there is no truth in what you wrote.All I see is an attempt to steal the word of God from me like the Devil stole it from you.
S
Steve K.
Guest
The Language of Today
Dean Burgon (1813-81), a defender of the King James Bible, made an interesting statement concerning the language used in the R.V. He says of the Revised Version of 1881 [Which is sister to all subsequent versions up to, and including the soon to be published (Feb. 1995) politically correct Bible.] that due to the unsound text it was from it became "the most astonishing as well as the most calamitous, literary blunder of the age." (John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics, n.d., xi.) But, he becomes more personal than this when he writes to Lord Cranbrook concerning his work written in defense of the "Sacred text." In this letter he tells Lord Cranbrook that:
"The English [emphasis his] (as well as the Greek) of the newly 'Revised Version' is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply unintelligible how a company of Scholars can have spent ten years in elaborating such a very unsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences, their pedantic obscurity and their unidiomatic English, contrast painfully with 'the happy turns of expression, the music of the cadences, the felicities of rhythm' of our Authorized Version. "(Ibid., vi.)
Yet, there is no question that part of the reason that would have been given for this revising was to get a Bible in a more "readable" language, and to correct some of the "problems" that the translators could not accomplish because they did not have all the necessary manuscripts. Consider what Dr. Edward Hills declares concerning the same thought.
In the second place, those who talk about translating the Bible into the 'language of today' never define what they mean by this expression. What is the language of today? [emphasis his] The language of 1881 is the not the language of today, nor the language of 1901, nor even the language of 1921. (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, Des Moines; The Christian Research Press, 1973, 213.)
God does not lower the standard of His book by putting it into the language of today. Kenneth Taylor tried this in his 1971 edition of The Living Bible (the first one) where in I Samuel 20:30 he used a phrase common to this vulgar world. He has since removed the phrase. We do not need a Bible in our language, it would have no spiritual power whatsoever! [Just as none of these "new" Bibles since 1881 have EVER produced a local, national or worldwide revival.] It would be just like reading the newspaper, fictional reading materials, or any other materials written, and "inspired" by men. Note what Mr. Taylor says in the preface of this modern Bible.
This book is a paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments. Its purpose is to say as exactly as possible what the writers of the Scriptures meant, and to say it simply, expanding where necessary for a clear [emphasis mine] understanding by the modern [emphasis mine] reader. (The Living Bible, Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971, Preface.)
How many times has the word "modern" been used as an excuse for men to make the Living Word of God a prevarication? It is again reiterated by Dr. Hills concerning the type of language that our Bible is (was) written in when he clearly states:
In the first place, the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical [emphasis mine] English which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. (Hills, ibid., 212-13.)
Imagine, if you can, putting a Bible into the language of the people of the United States. The way the language varies just in the north, south, east and west would demand at least four different versions.
The reason Mr. Weiss has gone to such length to make the language of the Bible look weak, is to show that we really do not have a true copy of the Bible since each generation must have its own copy in a language it can read and understand. To make this position stronger, he goes into a spiel about missionaries who translate the Bible into the most "understandable" language of the nations they are in. He does this while including John Wycliffe (1320-1384), Martin Luther (1483-1546), William Tyndale (1494-1536), and others into this same category. That's like a liberal comparing himself with the Apostle Paul because he (the liberal) has written a book like Paul.
Consider that Mr. Weiss' reasoning is not much different from that of Rev. Burton Throckmorton, one of the scholars for the new "politically correct" Bible. Throckmorton says:
We think there are large numbers of people yearning for a Bible that isn't oppressive to so many different groups of people.....The word Father [emphasis his] has always been just a metaphor for God, but the word has become so common that people have forgotten that God does not really have a sex.. David Crumm, "Scholars make Bible politically correct," (Detroit Free Press, 14 November 1994, 1A, 3A. )
Do you suppose that Mr. Weiss would agree with the above statement? If not, why? After all, what is any different from his point of view than Throckmorton's?
Dean Burgon (1813-81), a defender of the King James Bible, made an interesting statement concerning the language used in the R.V. He says of the Revised Version of 1881 [Which is sister to all subsequent versions up to, and including the soon to be published (Feb. 1995) politically correct Bible.] that due to the unsound text it was from it became "the most astonishing as well as the most calamitous, literary blunder of the age." (John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics, n.d., xi.) But, he becomes more personal than this when he writes to Lord Cranbrook concerning his work written in defense of the "Sacred text." In this letter he tells Lord Cranbrook that:
"The English [emphasis his] (as well as the Greek) of the newly 'Revised Version' is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply unintelligible how a company of Scholars can have spent ten years in elaborating such a very unsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences, their pedantic obscurity and their unidiomatic English, contrast painfully with 'the happy turns of expression, the music of the cadences, the felicities of rhythm' of our Authorized Version. "(Ibid., vi.)
Yet, there is no question that part of the reason that would have been given for this revising was to get a Bible in a more "readable" language, and to correct some of the "problems" that the translators could not accomplish because they did not have all the necessary manuscripts. Consider what Dr. Edward Hills declares concerning the same thought.
In the second place, those who talk about translating the Bible into the 'language of today' never define what they mean by this expression. What is the language of today? [emphasis his] The language of 1881 is the not the language of today, nor the language of 1901, nor even the language of 1921. (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, Des Moines; The Christian Research Press, 1973, 213.)
God does not lower the standard of His book by putting it into the language of today. Kenneth Taylor tried this in his 1971 edition of The Living Bible (the first one) where in I Samuel 20:30 he used a phrase common to this vulgar world. He has since removed the phrase. We do not need a Bible in our language, it would have no spiritual power whatsoever! [Just as none of these "new" Bibles since 1881 have EVER produced a local, national or worldwide revival.] It would be just like reading the newspaper, fictional reading materials, or any other materials written, and "inspired" by men. Note what Mr. Taylor says in the preface of this modern Bible.
This book is a paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments. Its purpose is to say as exactly as possible what the writers of the Scriptures meant, and to say it simply, expanding where necessary for a clear [emphasis mine] understanding by the modern [emphasis mine] reader. (The Living Bible, Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971, Preface.)
How many times has the word "modern" been used as an excuse for men to make the Living Word of God a prevarication? It is again reiterated by Dr. Hills concerning the type of language that our Bible is (was) written in when he clearly states:
In the first place, the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical [emphasis mine] English which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. (Hills, ibid., 212-13.)
Imagine, if you can, putting a Bible into the language of the people of the United States. The way the language varies just in the north, south, east and west would demand at least four different versions.
The reason Mr. Weiss has gone to such length to make the language of the Bible look weak, is to show that we really do not have a true copy of the Bible since each generation must have its own copy in a language it can read and understand. To make this position stronger, he goes into a spiel about missionaries who translate the Bible into the most "understandable" language of the nations they are in. He does this while including John Wycliffe (1320-1384), Martin Luther (1483-1546), William Tyndale (1494-1536), and others into this same category. That's like a liberal comparing himself with the Apostle Paul because he (the liberal) has written a book like Paul.
Consider that Mr. Weiss' reasoning is not much different from that of Rev. Burton Throckmorton, one of the scholars for the new "politically correct" Bible. Throckmorton says:
We think there are large numbers of people yearning for a Bible that isn't oppressive to so many different groups of people.....The word Father [emphasis his] has always been just a metaphor for God, but the word has become so common that people have forgotten that God does not really have a sex.. David Crumm, "Scholars make Bible politically correct," (Detroit Free Press, 14 November 1994, 1A, 3A. )
Do you suppose that Mr. Weiss would agree with the above statement? If not, why? After all, what is any different from his point of view than Throckmorton's?
Then it should be easy... very easy in fact, to answer the simple questions put to you and to refute factually the answers I give.
Jerome translated the Vulgate in order to give the common Roman, which was practically the whole civilized world at the time, the Word of God in their language. Over time, Latin fell out of use but the Roman church insisted on the Vulgate-only position and made it a crime to translate the scriptures into the common tongue. This led to error on top of error as the people blindly followed those with the power to tell them what God said... or more accurately what they wanted God to say.
KJVOnlyism is slowly doing the exact same thing. English is evolving but you and those like you insist on KJVOnlyism and scare many into subjection to this false doctrine. I know many KJVO's who are afraid to read the scriptures in a language they understand and afraid of reading the KJV in fear that they won't understand and someone like you will accuse them of not being Spirit filled. The day is coming when readers will not be able to accurately understand the KJV. This violates God's intent when He gave man His Word in their common tongue.
Deny all you want. This is truth.
Not by your definition. He thought the KJV had errors which by you definition makes him a Bible hater and voids everything he said.
By the way, I am fairly certain that Burgon was Anglican just like Westcott and Hort.
Hills is not my authority either. I agree with his assessments on the language of 1881, 1901, and 1921... however these would be much closer than 1611.
We aren't talking about the "thees" and "thous". We are talking about commonly used words like "let", "communicate", and "conversation."
Or better yet, imagine putting the Bible into Koine Greek which also had regional variations... but that is exactly what God did!
Funny he should mention Paul. Paul wrote his epistles in Koine Greek for the people rather than classical Greek for the elite.
This one quote tells me all I should need to know about the author. He willing to put words into his opponents mouths in an extremely unjust way... so that he can attack what the man has never asserted. You have found another liar to copy and paste onto the BB Steve.
neal4christ
New Member
Hey, I noticed something. I can tell when Steve is writing and when he is copying a pasting. His writing is the one or two liners with no info and no real value to the discussion and his copying and pasting are the long articles that have false info and no real value to the discussion!
Come on, Steve. Stop copying and pasting what others think and try it for yourself! You might have an epiphany.
Neal
Come on, Steve. Stop copying and pasting what others think and try it for yourself! You might have an epiphany.
Neal
S
Steve K.
Guest
It's a free country if you don't want to read it don't. Whether I type it or paste it truth is truth.
KING JAMES AV 1611 said:
Now don't try to pull a fast one Ransom.If the KJV is the word of God then the MV's can't be because they don't agree.
Objective Reality <tm> suggests otherwise.
Scott your problem appears to be an authority problem from all angles.
Only with yours . . . or, at least, whatever "authority" you pretend to have.
Now don't try to pull a fast one Ransom.If the KJV is the word of God then the MV's can't be because they don't agree.
Objective Reality <tm> suggests otherwise.
Scott your problem appears to be an authority problem from all angles.
Only with yours . . . or, at least, whatever "authority" you pretend to have.